Signs of US science going downhill:

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-european-team-bests-chinese-teleporting.html

Notice the word America in there? Europe and China head to head with nary a peep about America. It seems that is the wave of the future.

We get to fight creationists over whether creationism is to be forced to be taught along side evolution in a science class while the real work is sliding right by the US.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-european-team-bests-chinese-teleporting.html

Notice the word America in there? Europe and China head to head with nary a peep about America. It seems that is the wave of the future.

We get to fight creationists over whether creationism is to be forced to be taught along side evolution in a science class while the real work is sliding right by the US.

I don't know, but the idea of creation in general is becoming more plausable to me as of late. I personally feel that we are instruments used for measurement. What exactly is the measurement we are taking, I'm not sure. Our existence really seems to parallel any measurement we ourslelves attempt to make, that is that the act of observation affects the system, much in the way an ohm meter affects the system it measures.

Can anyone say for certain that the universe exists without a mind to observe it, or the mind exists without a universe to create it, or is the universe perhaps observing the mind? Feeling that I am conscious because of my mind ( that is the mind observing the universe), inevitably leads me to belive that the universe (at least my unverse) is a construct of my mind. I know this because I can (although admittedly subjectively) say that the perception of the universe varies, at least slightly from mind to mind, much the way concomitant methods of measurement yeild varied interpretations of the measured system.

However, tying what I say to creationism would be a serious mistake in my opinion, I'm not trying to sell moral beliefs through a silly religion, just trying to rock the boat. Either way I'd like to further develop the idea by attempting to incorporate others inputs.

Originally posted by joe shmo
I don't know, but the idea of creation in general is becoming more plausable to me as of late. I personally feel that we are instruments used for measurement. What exactly is the measurement we are taking, I'm not sure. Our existence really seems to parallel any measurement we ourslelves attempt to make, that is that the act of observation affects the sy Either way I'd like to further develop the idea by attempting to incorporate others inputs.

creationism utilises exactly the same scientific data but simply interprets it in a
different way. The problem has been in the past that creationists have attempted to
substantiate some ludicrous claims on the basis of nothing but a flawed
interpretation of scripture, for example that the creative days were a mere 24hour
period, or lasted for a mere 1000 years, when clearly , the earth is much much
older than 10,000 years. The greatest confrontations and possibly
misunderstandings between creationists and materialists have arisen over Darwins
theory of evolution, in which creationists are willing to acknowledge adaptation
occurs but that transmutation is prohibited biologically because of what is termed
'the discontinuity of genus'.

How can one disprove that an observer observes evidence of harmony or design or
intelligence? it cannot be done, all anyone can state with any certainty is, that it
does not appear that way to them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
creationism utilises exactly the same scientific data but simply interprets it in a
different way. The problem has been in the past that creationists have attempted to
substantiate some ludicrous claims on the basis of nothing but a flawed
interpretation of scripture, for example that the creative days were a mere 24hour
period, or lasted fo ...[text shortened]... done, all anyone can state with any certainty is, that it
does not appear that way to them.

Let's read this different interpretation then, for instance explain to me how the whale came to be.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Let's read this different interpretation then, for instance explain to me how the whale came to be.

According to the evolutionary theory, whales evolved in the sea, came to land and then
went back to the sea some 50 million years ago, nearest relative, hippopotamus, why
did it return to the sea? speculated that it may have behaved in a similar fashion to the
aquatic dear in that it jumps into water when pressed with danger, 'empirical evidence',
none. Creation states that all creatures were created according to their genus, 'kinds'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
According to the evolutionary theory, whales evolved in the sea, came to land and then
went back to the sea some 50 million years ago, nearest relative, hippopotamus, why
did it return to the sea? speculated that it may have behaved in a similar fashion to the
aquatic dear in that it jumps into water when pressed with danger, 'empirical eviden
none. Creation states that all creatures were created according to their genus, 'kinds'.

I know what happened according to evolutionary theory, i'm asking you to give your side of the story, which i hope will be a little more substantial than 'God created them according to their kinds'. So i have two questions for you -

1. How does the abundance of fossils which clearly show land based animals merging into water based animals fit into your scheme.

2. Do you accept that semi-aquatic mammals alive here today ie. Otter, Beaver and Platypus, had an ancestor that lived exclusively on land?

Edit - I see you have a concrete definition of what a 'kind' is, that will be useful.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I know what happened according to evolutionary theory, i'm asking you to give your side of the story, which i hope will be a little more substantial than 'God created them according to their kinds'. So i have two questions for you -

1. How does the abundance of fossils which clearly show land based animals merging into water based animals fit into you ...[text shortened]... d?

Edit - I see you have a concrete definition of what a 'kind' is, that will be useful.

The fossil record details whole species appearing without precedent and is open to
interpretation, for example,

Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon
State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to
conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not
change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in
agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to
reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of
fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that
the in-between forms will never be found.”

which is an interpretation and an evaluation of the very same data that you cite for
your interpretation,

its entirely typical and rather banal to be honest, for the materialist to specify a
specific instance in an attempt to bolster his case, rather than look and evaluate the
whole objectively, that's why you cite whales. Its not my scheme of things, i didn't
author it. Why would the Bible provide details of how creation took place, its not a
scientific textbook is it? would you expect Darwin to detail how the holy spirit
operates in Origin of the species? No, well then, lets not be silly.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The fossil record details whole species appearing without precedent and is open to
interpretation, for example,

Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon
State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to
conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. ...[text shortened]... ail how the holy spirit
operates in Origin of the species? No, well then, lets not be silly.

I'll get into the substance, or lack of, your post later.

I can't help but laugh that you denounce the YEC's in a post above and then provide a quote from one. Donald Chittick a man who thinks that 'early post flood' mankind had internal combustion engines and possibly jet engines. What a cracker-jack!!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'll get into the substance, or lack of, your post later.

I can't help but laugh that you denounce the YEC's in a post above and then provide a quote from one. Donald Chittick a man who thinks that 'early post flood' mankind had internal combustion engines and possibly jet engines. What a cracker-jack!!

yeah he must have got his doctorate when he fell into the Clyde and surfaced with it in
his pocket! Anyway dear PK, it was cited, not because I necessarily am in agreement
with his beliefs but as a simple example of an alternative interpretation of the very
same data.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah he must have got his doctorate when he fell into the Clyde and surfaced with it in
his pocket! Anyway dear PK, it was cited, not because I necessarily am in agreement
with his beliefs but as a simple example of an alternative interpretation of the very
same data.

There is an enormous spectrum of disciplines within 'science', just because someone has a doctorate in one particular field doesn't mean they know everything in every other field. For instance, as i have told you before, my girlfriend is an Msc in her particular field. In this case it was stroke rehab in relation to balance, does this mean she knows anything about particle physics? No. Radio carbon dating? No. Cosmology? No. Paleontology? No. MtDNA analysis? No. Rehabilitation Science? Most definitely. You catch my drift?

As you have said above, the earth is most definitely not a few thousand years old and any scientist who claims as such has lost all credibility. Add to this his rather bonkers view that early humans had invented internal combustion engines and jet engines it is quite clear he has lost the plot and can be dismissed with a straight bat through extra cover for four.

I asked for your views on a couple of questions above and you have answered with a quote from someone who's views you don't even share. To me that is rather odd, would you like to try again please?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There is an enormous spectrum of disciplines within 'science', just because someone has a doctorate in one particular field doesn't mean they know everything in every other field. For instance, as i have told you before, my girlfriend is an Msc in her particular field. In this case it was stroke rehab in relation to balance, does this mean she knows anyt ...[text shortened]... s views you don't even share. To me that is rather odd, would you like to try again please?

no, I was merely illustrating that the same scientific data is open to interpretation, not
desiring to get into another futile debate of creationism v materialism.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, I was merely illustrating that the same scientific data is open to interpretation, not
desiring to get into another futile debate of creationism v materialism.

It is certainly a futile debate on when side admits to being 'closed minded' and 'ignorant' on the topic at hand.

You claimed it's all about the interpretation of data, so i gave you some specific data to interpret with regard to the evolution of whales, or lack of evolution in your view. As i said in the my opening post i was hoping for something a little more that 'God did it 'cause the Bible says so'. It appears that is all you have to offer. Am i surprised? Not in the slightest.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It is certainly a futile debate on when side admits to being 'closed minded' and 'ignorant' on the topic at hand.

You claimed it's all about the interpretation of data, so i gave you some specific data to interpret with regard to the evolution of whales, or lack of evolution in your view. As i said in the my opening post i was hoping for something a ...[text shortened]... ays so'. It appears that is all you have to offer. Am i surprised? Not in the slightest.

you want surprise?, you think I am a jack-in-the-box?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you want surprise?, you think I am a jack-in-the-box?

You're like a Wonderbra on this topic, from the outside it promises much but actually delivers very little.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You're like a Wonderbra on this topic, from the outside it promises much but actually delivers very little.

LOL, i was merely encouraged by Joe Shmo's willingness to give consideration to the
possibility of different perspectives in the universal scheme of things.